Look Outside
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: .
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look Outside
I know that many people disagree with me on the importance of flying visually instead of staring at the pretty glass panel, but:
Sun News : Blind spots caused planes to collide mid-air: TSB
This is exactly what killed Bobby Younkin and Jimmy Franklin at Moose Jaw.
Sun News : Blind spots caused planes to collide mid-air: TSB
An investigation into why two planes collided in mid-air over Pemberton, B.C., last year has found both pilots were in each other's blind spots and wouldn't have had time for emergency maneuvers until the last moments before collision.
The Transportation Safety Board said in its report on Thursday it was clear skies during the noon-hour on June 29, 2013, and winds were calm.
Visibility, however, was the biggest problem due to the positioning of the planes at the time, according to the TSB's findings.
The Transportation Safety Board said in its report on Thursday it was clear skies during the noon-hour on June 29, 2013, and winds were calm.
Visibility, however, was the biggest problem due to the positioning of the planes at the time, according to the TSB's findings.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown through that area dozens of times it's highly unlikely either of those two pilots were staring at their pretty glass panels and the TSB doesn't suggest they were in their report. Not hitting the earth or other airplanes threading their way through the same terrain you are is usually first and foremost in people's minds.
White gliders against white clouds especially in a nose on aspect really can be difficult to see when there is so much other visual clutter.
White gliders against white clouds especially in a nose on aspect really can be difficult to see when there is so much other visual clutter.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look Outside
The TSB report quite clearly indicated the aircraft were in each others' blind spot: you appear not to understand, but by definition that means they were unable to see each other. 
Moving along, I'm not sure that anybody questions the importance of maintaining a good lookout, and I'm even less clear what staring at pretty glass panels has to do with this particular accident. Unless, of course, you were on board for the collision and somehow miraculously survived to come on here and lecture us about it (which I doubt is the case)...
Moving along, I'm not sure that anybody questions the importance of maintaining a good lookout, and I'm even less clear what staring at pretty glass panels has to do with this particular accident. Unless, of course, you were on board for the collision and somehow miraculously survived to come on here and lecture us about it (which I doubt is the case)...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you never experienced an airplane or a vehicle in a blind spot before? If not you must be some kind of superhuman with 360 degree 24/7 proximity radar. This was a tragic accident and implying the pilots involved were somehow lacking or negligent in their lookout despite the factors cited in the TSB report is, well...arrogant presumption.
Give it a rest. People are able to draw their own lessons without your pontificating.
Give it a rest. People are able to draw their own lessons without your pontificating.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always found that flying a 150 was like sitting inside a mail box looking out through the mail slot, unlike our little Champs in which one sits almost in front of the wing thus avoiding this "tunnel vision" feeling. After a series of frights going into a field in Canada which has dozens of non English speaking of shore students we fited a Picas to our 421, not as good as a Tcas and only totally acurate at low level when de- presurised, but it does give a bearing and elevation of the target, in haze and poor vis its better than a mark one eyball.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my old days we feared gliders because they didn't show up on radar very well, and even though there was sometimes lots of them together they are difficult to see especially if it's hazy out or they blend into the background.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gliders have FLARM, planes have mode C. Pay attention 
Nobody is saying the technology is perfect (unless maybe you have TCAS). However it would certainly be useful in addition to looking out, especially in this case where (apparently) it would have been physically impossible for either plane to have seen each other.
Nobody is saying the technology is perfect (unless maybe you have TCAS). However it would certainly be useful in addition to looking out, especially in this case where (apparently) it would have been physically impossible for either plane to have seen each other.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glass gives a simulator impression, with so much information
constantly presented in such a way is far easier to fly
glued to the screen than keeping your eyes outside the cockpit
that might be enhanced with a HUD display.
I've no doubt that eye monitoring software will
sooner or later be added to the Flight Data Recorder
that will tell us after the mid air of how and who
failed to look out.
Yep,
Just turned the channel from AvCanada.
Ramjet
constantly presented in such a way is far easier to fly
glued to the screen than keeping your eyes outside the cockpit
that might be enhanced with a HUD display.
I've no doubt that eye monitoring software will
sooner or later be added to the Flight Data Recorder
that will tell us after the mid air of how and who
failed to look out.
Yep,
Just turned the channel from AvCanada.
Ramjet
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just read the full TSB report:
Aviation Investigation Report A13P0127 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada
It is interesting that the TSB specifically faulted reliance on "see-and-avoid" (or "see-and-be-seen"), noting its inadequacy:
"The failure of the see-and-avoid principle to avert this collision illustrates the residual risk associated with reliance on that principle as the sole means of collision avoidance. If the see-and-avoid principle is relied upon as the sole means of collision avoidance when operating in visual flight rules conditions, then there is a continued risk of collision."
Of course we've known that "see-and-avoid" is not adequate for nearly 60 years, ever since the 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision, and the 1958 United 736 mid-air collision.
Those two crashes directly led to the passing of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which established the FAA and a revamped the US ATC system.
Here we are in 2014 and "see-and-avoid" is often still the sole mean of preventing collisions especially among GA pilots.
Aviation Investigation Report A13P0127 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada
It is interesting that the TSB specifically faulted reliance on "see-and-avoid" (or "see-and-be-seen"), noting its inadequacy:
"The failure of the see-and-avoid principle to avert this collision illustrates the residual risk associated with reliance on that principle as the sole means of collision avoidance. If the see-and-avoid principle is relied upon as the sole means of collision avoidance when operating in visual flight rules conditions, then there is a continued risk of collision."
Of course we've known that "see-and-avoid" is not adequate for nearly 60 years, ever since the 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision, and the 1958 United 736 mid-air collision.
Those two crashes directly led to the passing of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which established the FAA and a revamped the US ATC system.
Here we are in 2014 and "see-and-avoid" is often still the sole mean of preventing collisions especially among GA pilots.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: .
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it would have been physically impossible for either plane to have seen each other
then the inevitable conclusion is that GA
pilots are in fact suicidal.
I've been flying for over 40 years now, and
instructing for over 20 years, and nearly all
the people I give dual to have really substandard
lookouts.
They spend their time looking at toys in the
panel (foreskin?) in VMC, which I find terrifying.
And the solution proposed here is ... more toys
in the panel.
To top it off, they rely upon their comm radio to
avoid collisions, by tacking on "All conflicting
traffic please advise" to the end of all of their
transmissions.
Yep, more toys in the panel. And more wordy
radio transmissions. That's what's needed.
Back in the old days, many (most?) pilots also
rode motorcycles, which breeds a certain level
of justifiable paranoia, especially in traffic in
the city.
These days, fewer and fewer pilots ride motorcycles,
which shows.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone with any instructional time at all knows that every new pilot looks at the panel too much and has to be taught how to scan outside. It's perfectly normal and looking out is just another one of the skills needed to be learned. Transitioning to a new airplane people will also spend more time looking at the panel until they get the lay of the land and learn how to use any new equipment installed. Also perfectly normal. When one starts flying automated airplanes it becomes even more prevalent because the automation must be handled correctly and constantly managed to ensure it is in the appropriate mode for what you need it to do and properly monitored, so your attention must be split especially in a busy terminal area with lots of traffic and very demanding IFR procedural requirements.
But at the risk of repeating what has already been said, nothing in the TSB report indicates either pilot was deficient in their visual lookout but does go on at length explaining the challenges they had in seeing each other before it was too late. The report doesn't say whether either pilot rode motorcycles or not so we don't know if that was a factor. An omission on the TSB's part I'm sure.
But at the risk of repeating what has already been said, nothing in the TSB report indicates either pilot was deficient in their visual lookout but does go on at length explaining the challenges they had in seeing each other before it was too late. The report doesn't say whether either pilot rode motorcycles or not so we don't know if that was a factor. An omission on the TSB's part I'm sure.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone with any instructional time at all knows that every new pilot looks at the panel too much and has to be taught how to scan outside. It's perfectly normal and looking out is just another one of the skills needed to be learned.
Looking at the instrument panel as their main clues for airplane attitude is not perfectly normal unless they came to their first lessons with an understanding of the relationship of each instrument to the attitude or performance change of the airplane.
Until they have at least reached the solo stage of flying the only instruments they should have available to look at is the airspeed, altimeter and the T&B or turn co-ordinator.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just renewed my Class 4 and Class One Aerobatic, and what I noticed that I had a habit of putting in briefings, out of experience was the story of how
we are playing Russian Roulette every time we fly and it is only the LOOKOUT for other aircraft that only reduces our probability of being yet another
air to air collision.
I stress the stories of one Aircraft at 180kts and another at 120 is a closing speed of 300kts that means if you keep your eyes away from the windshield for more than 5 seconds, that unseen aircraft that popped out of cloud on descent a mile away is going to be in your face in just 5 seconds.
I think TC could throw in some exam questions that include variations of this idea.
we are playing Russian Roulette every time we fly and it is only the LOOKOUT for other aircraft that only reduces our probability of being yet another
air to air collision.
I stress the stories of one Aircraft at 180kts and another at 120 is a closing speed of 300kts that means if you keep your eyes away from the windshield for more than 5 seconds, that unseen aircraft that popped out of cloud on descent a mile away is going to be in your face in just 5 seconds.
I think TC could throw in some exam questions that include variations of this idea.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: .
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of sim wizards out there, that stare at
the gauges and don't bother looking outside.
Earlier this year, I checked out a couple guys
on their new-to-them RV-7A. Nice airplane.
They had this monstrous checklist that I put
away in the back. I had them do a simple
cockpit flow of a couple items and told them to
LOOK OUTSIDE
One of the owners told me that he thought he
would probably die, if the EFIS's went blank.
Needless to say, I popped both EFIS cct breakers
and we went flying with no instruments - at all.
No backup steam gauges in that airplane.
He flew the airplane just fine, once he put the
power where it usually was, and the nose where
it usually went.
ATTITUDE + POWER = PERFORMANCE
is a lesson that seems lost, these days. I won't
mention AF447.
He was amazed and happy, that he could fly the
aircraft, without staring at the instrument panel.
Instead, he just
LOOKED OUTSIDE
I know that my ideas are anachronistic, but really,
for VFR flight, do you need any gauges at all? Nope.
I fly many VFR aircraft that have no gyroscopic
gauges at all. Just an airspeed indicator and an
altimeter. Not even a ball. Not even a VSI.
You don't need all that fancy stuff, for VFR flight.
You don't need to spend the whole flight, looking
inside the aircraft, staring at your Foreskin on your
maxipad.
If you want to play with toys, just do it on the sim.
the gauges and don't bother looking outside.
Earlier this year, I checked out a couple guys
on their new-to-them RV-7A. Nice airplane.
They had this monstrous checklist that I put
away in the back. I had them do a simple
cockpit flow of a couple items and told them to
LOOK OUTSIDE
One of the owners told me that he thought he
would probably die, if the EFIS's went blank.
Needless to say, I popped both EFIS cct breakers
and we went flying with no instruments - at all.
No backup steam gauges in that airplane.
He flew the airplane just fine, once he put the
power where it usually was, and the nose where
it usually went.
ATTITUDE + POWER = PERFORMANCE
is a lesson that seems lost, these days. I won't
mention AF447.
He was amazed and happy, that he could fly the
aircraft, without staring at the instrument panel.
Instead, he just
LOOKED OUTSIDE
I know that my ideas are anachronistic, but really,
for VFR flight, do you need any gauges at all? Nope.
I fly many VFR aircraft that have no gyroscopic
gauges at all. Just an airspeed indicator and an
altimeter. Not even a ball. Not even a VSI.
You don't need all that fancy stuff, for VFR flight.
You don't need to spend the whole flight, looking
inside the aircraft, staring at your Foreskin on your
maxipad.
If you want to play with toys, just do it on the sim.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the most useful items an Instructor can take on a flight is
a spare chart and masking tape.
the moment you a student starts to fixate on the panel and sacrifice a lookout, you tape over the entire panel and develop their scanning outside the cockpit.
In a Decathalon from the rear seat you have NO instruments what so ever, and you have to get the student to clearly understand that They have the better visibility and they have to keep the lookout, and if they dont they might kill both of you.
I show that despite not being able to see any instruments at all, that I can rattle of the airspeed within 5kts, the amount of G being pulled, or was pulled, and once told an altitude, I can guess when the circuit altitude has changed into a climb or descent that might breach goals or limits.
Glass Cockpits do breed a false sense of infallibility, and total reliance that can and will kill.
While we have Flight Schools that have incestuous hiring of the instructors that they train by instructors that they trained, the value of that training will slowly eradicate practical standards and the most simple of all tasks of insuring that eyes keep outside the cockpit.
Even Head Up Displays have a danger in that the eye focus is at the windshield and not at infinity which means distance vision is lost.
a spare chart and masking tape.
the moment you a student starts to fixate on the panel and sacrifice a lookout, you tape over the entire panel and develop their scanning outside the cockpit.
In a Decathalon from the rear seat you have NO instruments what so ever, and you have to get the student to clearly understand that They have the better visibility and they have to keep the lookout, and if they dont they might kill both of you.
I show that despite not being able to see any instruments at all, that I can rattle of the airspeed within 5kts, the amount of G being pulled, or was pulled, and once told an altitude, I can guess when the circuit altitude has changed into a climb or descent that might breach goals or limits.
Glass Cockpits do breed a false sense of infallibility, and total reliance that can and will kill.
While we have Flight Schools that have incestuous hiring of the instructors that they train by instructors that they trained, the value of that training will slowly eradicate practical standards and the most simple of all tasks of insuring that eyes keep outside the cockpit.
Even Head Up Displays have a danger in that the eye focus is at the windshield and not at infinity which means distance vision is lost.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATTITUDE + POWER = PERFORMANCE
Definitely a principle the crew of that aircraft forgot, but they also forgot the "Unreliable Airspeed" drill and checklist which would have saved their lives as well. In this context however looking out the window would not have helped since you cannot accurately determine your pitch attitude by looking over the glare shield in an A330, and it was over the atlantic ocean at night. The instruments were their only reference.
Glass cockpits do not breed a false sense of infallibility that can and will kill. That is an absurd statement. Glass cockpits and the information they can convey in easy to understand and integrate ways are instrumental in the safety and ability of aircraft to perform their function.
As well HUD's are actually focused to infinity so your eyes do not have to refocus to see the information displayed. The only visual problems with HUD's are the "masking" effect of the symbology covering things directly behind it and the washing out effect of the increased overall light making dimmer objects behind it disappear. That phenomenon is particularly worse when flying into the sun on a hazy day and at night.
How is any of this related to the accident referenced in the original post though? There is absolutely nothing in the report or known facts indicating either of these two pilots had an inadequate lookout.
Definitely a principle the crew of that aircraft forgot, but they also forgot the "Unreliable Airspeed" drill and checklist which would have saved their lives as well. In this context however looking out the window would not have helped since you cannot accurately determine your pitch attitude by looking over the glare shield in an A330, and it was over the atlantic ocean at night. The instruments were their only reference.
Glass cockpits do not breed a false sense of infallibility that can and will kill. That is an absurd statement. Glass cockpits and the information they can convey in easy to understand and integrate ways are instrumental in the safety and ability of aircraft to perform their function.
As well HUD's are actually focused to infinity so your eyes do not have to refocus to see the information displayed. The only visual problems with HUD's are the "masking" effect of the symbology covering things directly behind it and the washing out effect of the increased overall light making dimmer objects behind it disappear. That phenomenon is particularly worse when flying into the sun on a hazy day and at night.
How is any of this related to the accident referenced in the original post though? There is absolutely nothing in the report or known facts indicating either of these two pilots had an inadequate lookout.